Teaching to the test, no matter what you call it

A new article on Education Week, "Teaching With The Test, Not To the Test" by Amy H. Greene & Glennon Doyle Melton, can let us know just how much tests have infiltrated education and how educators will go to any lengths to work with them.  Although, I fear that Greene and Melton have gone too far.

They offer fundamental beliefs to help educators prepare students for testing:

1. Successful test-takers must first be successful readers.
2. Successful test-takers must be able to translate the unique language of the test.
3. Learning to be a successful test-taker can be fun.

The first point is the most dangerous.  I fear that there will come a day (if it hasn't happened already) where students will see reading as test-taking, not as actual reading - like a book or magazine or newspaper.  Greene and Melton claim that a test is like any other genre.  I've heard this before and have been in schools where "Tests" is a unit on par with "Memoir" and "Persuasive Essay" (this is encouraged by a well-known and well-respected School of Education).  Tests are not a genre of writing.  They are an inappropriate assessment tool.  Period.  Claiming that they are a genre unto themselves is an attempt to legitimize teaching to the test (or with the test .. or whatever you want to call it).  Let's not kid ourselves.

The second point is the most benign.  Greene and Melton write about "test talk" and teaching kids what it is meant by the different language used in tests.  Fair enough.  Language is used in different contexts for different reasons.  We just need to make sure that "test talk" doesn't become the dominant discourse in classrooms as it so often does.  "Test talk" should also be taught along with the idea that these tests are culturally biased, since the language used invites some in while it excludes others.  It's only fair to let the students in on that fact.

The last point ... well, I can't imagine how learning to be a successful test-taker can be fun and Greene and Melton offer no evidence or suggestions as to how it can be.  Of course, the skills tested on tests could be taught in an interesting way without ever mentioning, discussing, or showing the actual test or questions on it.  And, that's what it comes down to.  Educators need to work hard to identify the skills tested and teach them like they would teach anything else.  In addition, educators need to go beyond the skills tested on the test, since states so often set the bar so incredibly low. 

The authors do not mention the effect their new efforts at improving test scores had on actual reading and writing.  I was expecting to read that they found that students were doing better in their overall reading.  Perhaps the students did, and the authors chose to leave that part out.  That, in and of itself, is dangerous.  Shouldn't that always be the goal?  There's not doubt that tests are a part of education reality (if you can call any of this 'real').  But that does not mean with have to throw good instruction out and replace it with something inferior and then claim it's good instruction.

Whenever someone talks about tests and teaching to (with ... whatever) them, I'm reminded of what I heard Deborah Meier once say at a speaking engagement:  If we have a generation of students who are good at taking reading tests, but never pick up a book on their own, we've done something wrong. 

Comments

[New Teacher]

I agree with all you said. I am having difficulty accepting what my school wants me to do in regards to teaching to the MAP test. I dislike assigning students a number, level, and then demanding they read so many books per grading period "in their level", and then provide a written response. The students are not motivated and feel like they are being forced to read. No one likes being forced to do anything.

[Mandy Flaherty]

Mr. Fredrick, in light of your critique, what are you doing to help your students navigate through a world in which they will continuously face tests as hurdles they must surmount in order to gain greater levels of education and independence?

You assert that tests "are an inappropriate assessment tool. Period." With all due respect – as one who claims the privilege of being educated at a “well-respected School of Education” – your assertion that tests are universally inappropriate rings a bit hollow for me. Undoubtedly you were required to succeed on various tests in high school in order to progress to the school of education you referenced and certainly you were forced to endure some assessment of your skills and aptitude throughout your training in education. Clearly, you navigated successfully through those assessments. The point is, regardless of how inappropriate any given test is, the reality is that students – including you and I – relied on our ability to tackle tests in order to have the opportunities we have today. It is easy, with those opportunities in hand, to turn to our students and dismiss the tests as imprecise evaluations of intelligence and skill, because clearly they are just that. But, this position is a monumental disservice to the students whose futures will be compromised by our refusal to arm them with the tools they need to engage life’s challenges. Greene and Melton – although repeatedly underscoring the endemic deficiencies in standardized tests, especially in the English-learning population they serve – are committed to equipping their students with the substantive skills and confidence they need to surmount hurdles threatening to bar their success, regardless of how inappropriately crafted those obstacles may be. I urge you to do the same.

[Shawna Rogers]

I understand the basis of Mr. Frederick's argument of teaching to (with) the test, I must completely agree with Ms. Flaherty's comments. Having implemented the premise of Test Talk in my 3rd through 5th grade classrooms (13 classes in all), I can see the value of incorporating specific test strategies into our reading block. I am very careful to encourage my teachers to integrate these strategies and skills throughout their teaching so that it is not simply teach to the test skills. Test taking is and always will be a life-skill. To ignore this fact will do a disservice to our students. We must contiunue to analyze why and what we are testing students in order to improve these assessments for ALL students.

[Sal Monte]

Teaching to the test prohibits teachers from exploring new and exciting topics in many subjects. Our scheduling needs to be so regimented that we take the ability for students to delve deep into the curriculum out of the learning experience. I am a global history teacher in NY, and I can only spend 1 day on 9/11 because that is all the time I have for it! It is absurd. I would assume that many NY teachers agree with me. There should be disctrict tests. Not NY state tests.

[Shazia]

Good Post! Very informative–glad that you are going to continue writing things like this!

[TExES test]

Hi,
I am totally agree with you.There are some excellent topic you point out in this article.

[Pass the CBEST test]

Hi.
I got some important and informative information from your link.I appreciate you for such information.

Thank you

[rate my wife]

thanks for the great read.

[Praxis test]

This article is very useful for education .My site is also related to the education so please submit my site in our article.

Hey there,
"Internet language and students' use of it" is really a good article to read about language.Thanks for sharing such a good article.